I agree, men and women have different "natures" and it's true also, that a "woman's nature" is not equal to that of a man, it is a "greater truth" that a woman's nature is not of "less value" than a man's.
Your two propositions are irreconcilable. One nature must be a higher good than the other, thus one is more valuable than the other. To say man's nature is infinitely valuable is to attempt to equate man with God.
The presumption in your argument is that "higher good" is measured by "greatness."
Also, you are perhaps confusing "value" as exclusive to "multiple traits." Christ "redeemed" in "conjunction with" the Holy Spirit and Father. The Father "created" in "conjunction with" the Holy Spirit and Son. Is one "trait" or "talent" or "accomplishment" of "higher good" than another?
I have to ask you to rephrase your last response because it is incomprehensible to me. Part (If there can be parts of a mystery? I would suspect not but I use the word for simplicity's sake.) of the mystery of the Trinity is that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are completely equal, given that there is absolutely no difference between them, yet for reasons relatively unknown to me they have different roles.
I would not agree that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are "equal." Consubstantial, yes, but not "equal." I have no theological basis for saying this, other than the Nicean idea of "first cause" or "first urge" which, I believe, is still attributed to God the Father.
Man, by nature, is a little lower than the angels. His goodness is beneath that of an angel by nature.
"Goodness" is an interesting concept. Lucifer, an angel, clearly, is not evidenced by his "goodness." Perhaps "goodness potential" is a better turn of a phrase.
There is a hierarchy of goodness.
Without doubt, but only in "creation" terms.
My opinion is that woman is lower in the hierarchy of goodness as a creature than man since woman was created for man rather than man being created for woman,
Wait--in creation, "woman" was "part of" man, and thus already created "consubstantially "with" man. Man and WOman were then separated. However, consider "flesh of MY flesh" and "bone of MY bones"--how can you reconcile this idea of yours with that scripture. Recall also, that Eve wasn't just a "female" running around, she came from Adam and was called his "wife." This is significant.
for nothing is greater than that for which it is made.
I'll give this some additional thought.
Man and woman are certainly complementary, and no one can doubt that the beauty of woman is very excellent, but man indeed is the greater being by nature.
I also have to give this some additional thought and research. However, when considering "Mary, mother of God" one would have to say that her specific creation is "greater" (in your use of the word) than of any "man" or "woman."
That said, many women certainly may be more perfect than some men. The difference between man and woman does not diminish the value of woman. A good wife is priceless, and it is imperative that a good wife be submissive, and sweet.
Don't confuse "wife" with "woman" and "female." Different things.
It is not necessary for her to be highly educated, in fact this may work more to her detriment especially in light of the state of almost every educational institution save perhaps St. Mary's [SSPX]. It is also unnecessary for men to be highly educated; though, given the providing and guiding role of man, it is more useful for man to be educated than for woman to be.
Interesting qualifier--"highly." I'm not certain that I agree with you on this one. I do find it interesting, regardless of "knowledge" or "education" that wisdom, which should be sought more and is more highly prized in the "kingdom" than "knowledge" or "education" is attributed to have "female" attributes.
Perhaps this is why female saints outnumber male saints.